Slim's Checkuser accountability proposal Options

Slimmy has here published her proposal for checkuser accountability.

Users are entitled to be told upon request whether their user name or IP address (if it is static or semi-static) have been checked within the previous six months; they are entitled to be told on what date and by whom the check was performed, and for what reason.

Requests for this information should be made by e-mail to any admin with checkuser access; users must use the e-mail address they have entered in their Wikipedia preferences. If in doubt about the authenticity of the request, checkusers should reply via the "e-mail this user" function. If the request concerns an IP address, checkusers may check to ensure that the editor making the request has indeed been using that IP.

This provision will apply only from the date on which it becomes policy. Earlier requests for information are governed by the previous wording of this section, namely, "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."

Notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

What do you want to bet that this is one of those rules that exists primarily as a tool for the already powerful, not to protect the innocent?

Slimmy has here published her proposal for checkuser accountability.

Users are entitled to be told upon request whether their user name or IP address (if it is static or semi-static) have been checked within the previous six months; they are entitled to be told on what date and by whom the check was performed, and for what reason.

Requests for this information should be made by e-mail to any admin with checkuser access; users must use the e-mail address they have entered in their Wikipedia preferences. If in doubt about the authenticity of the request, checkusers should reply via the "e-mail this user" function. If the request concerns an IP address, checkusers may check to ensure that the editor making the request has indeed been using that IP.

This provision will apply only from the date on which it becomes policy. Earlier requests for information are governed by the previous wording of this section, namely, "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."

Notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

What do you want to bet that this is one of those rules that exists primarily as a tool for the already powerful, not to protect the innocent?

I don't see what she's all in a huff about if she doesn't have something to hide. Or if one of her buddies isn't socking. I'm sure I've been checkusered a few times. Big deal. I'm not doing anything wrong, and if I were, shame on me. But I'm not going to bitch and moan like I matter just because I got checked.

I don't see what she's all in a huff about if she doesn't have something to hide. Or if one of her buddies isn't socking. I'm sure I've been checkusered a few times. Big deal. I'm not doing anything wrong, and if I were, shame on me. But I'm not going to bitch and moan like I matter just because I got checked.

You can damn well bet that if Slimmy had the CU button she'd be on the other side of the issue.

They should just make the CU log visible, or maybe filter so a user can only see checkusers that were run on themselves.

There used to be a thing called Requests for CheckUser and some months ago I was under the mistaken impression that this was where all requests for checkuser were made, and the resulting checks logged. It's only after a wiki 'enemy' was suddenly blocked as a sock that I discovered otherwise. I don't know how difficult that would be to do, but it would make the process more transparent and with more rules around how it was done.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 21st July 2008, 3:39pm

They should just make the CU log visible, or maybe filter so a user can only see checkusers that were run on themselves.

That would probably be long term easiest/best. No IPs ever, though. Just specifically log hits vs. your logged-in username.

There used to be a thing called Requests for CheckUser and some months ago I was under the mistaken impression that this was where all requests for checkuser were made, and the resulting checks logged.

Oh no, only a minority ever went through RfCU. Most were requested by e-mail.

In the case of Poetlister, for example, there was an RfCU on her friend Newport which was declined. The subsequent checks on her (if any) are undocumented.

You can damn well bet that if Slimmy had the CU button she'd be on the other side of the issue.

One of the core features of an ethical person is that their ethics pass the Veil of Ignorance Test as formulated by John Rawls. In this view, a universal ethical principle is one that holds for all players in all circumstances and is indifferent to role-reversal.

If SV would have done something different if the shoe were on the other foot, then that's prima facie evidence she is not rising to best ethical practices.

There used to be a thing called Requests for CheckUser and some months ago I was under the mistaken impression that this was where all requests for checkuser were made, and the resulting checks logged. It's only after a wiki 'enemy' was suddenly blocked as a sock that I discovered otherwise. I don't know how difficult that would be to do, but it would make the process more transparent and with more rules around how it was done.

As I've said elsewhere on WR, RFCU was mainly intended to make it easier to ignore impertinent requests for checkuser. I'd be surprised if RFCU accounts for more than 10% of the checkuser "cases" pursued by checkusers.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

Sure, enough, shortly after this post, Alison shows up on Wikipedia to talk about it! You're welcome, Alison, glad to be of service!

What do you want to bet that this is one of those rules that exists primarily as a tool for the already powerful, not to protect the innocent?

The proposal is going nowhere -- the CUs can do whatever they want now, and none of them want to be required to release info to an evildoer!

Sorry about your proposal, Slim. Guess you'll have to keep relying on Jayjg to keep you informed.

Now, there is an amusing D-DOS attack on this: request this information weekly -- or even daily -- and the CUs will spend all their time delivering it. Until, of course, 15 minutes later, when they either ignore you or change the policy. And I suspect that requesting the data is grounds for being checkuser'd!

Sure, enough, shortly after this post, Alison shows up on Wikipedia to talk about it! You're welcome, Alison, glad to be of service!

Unfortunately, judging from those timestamps, you must have showed up on WR shortly afterwards (I swear I did not see that here first!!)

Imagine how many times Jayjg is going to be asked if this somehow does pass.

SLIMVIRGIN's "WIKIPEDIA Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) PROPOSAL

Slimmy has here published her proposal for checkuser accountability.

Users are entitled to be told upon request whether their user name or IP address (if it is static or semi-static) have been checked within the previous six months; they are entitled to be told on what date and by whom the check was performed, and for what reason.

Requests for this information should be made by e-mail to any admin with checkuser access; users must use the e-mail address they have entered in their Wikipedia preferences. If in doubt about the authenticity of the request, checkusers should reply via the "e-mail this user" function. If the request concerns an IP address, checkusers may check to ensure that the editor making the request has indeed been using that IP.

This provision will apply only from the date on which it becomes policy. Earlier requests for information are governed by the previous wording of this section, namely, "Notification to the account that is checked is permitted but is not mandatory."

Notification of the check to the community is not mandatory, but may be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

You know. Stuff like this makes Wikipedia-watching all worth it.

The only person capable of making such an ass of herself on Wikipedia is, well, you know. Starts with a D. Ends with a crash-boom-bang.

You know what I'm lookin' for Slim?

A Wikipedia Inspector General Proposal™. That will be my favorite day.l

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 22nd July 2008, 6:29pm

Tim Starling

I've said whenever the topic has come up, since I introduced CheckUser,
that the reason the log is private is to avoid the appearance of
incrimination when innocent users are cross-tested against abusive users,
to disprove an allegation of sockpuppetry. Having CheckUser run against
you does not imply any kind of wrongdoing.

If anyone wants such information released about them, they can contact me,
and I will give it to them. But I won't give out any information about the
other users who are cross-checked in the same investigation.

If SlimVirgin wants to imply that CheckUser is indeed a form of
allegation, and act offended, then so be it. That's the price we pay for
openness. You always have the option of ignoring her.

Marc replies to the last sentence

Sounds like the best advice yet.

g-maxwell's silver hammer is coming down again on the WP mailing list this thread refers to....he's going off on SV with Da Truth...(SweetBlueWaterGate Oversight)...the truth hits everybody according to Gordon Sumner, who was known to listen to Macca a time or two before quitting the proctory and going all pseudopunkie on us.

I've always liked reading Maxwell, a voice of earnest reason, if not always right, on WP.

SV responds with "you're attacking me!" instead of ever saying anywhere, "yup, my bad," which would make people stop "attacking" about that, after a good desysopping of course.

maxwell declined to mention the Pierre Salinger edits, but did gratuitously put Wordbombs RealName into the mix for good measure. But not Slimmy's.

G's MSH picks away some choice wordbombs at Slimmy:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...uly/094756.html

I'm pointing out that fact that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible because of the uncertainty created by oversight.

(Judd Bagley) used old Wikipedia dumps to recover some of the oversighted evidence and though that discover Sarah's"sweetbluewater" 'sock' account. So, unfortunately, the use of
oversight managed to degrade accountability which is an unfortunate risk of oversight.

The reason I brought up SBW (SweetBlueWater) was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your interactions.

I think some people deserve apologies from you.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Tue 22nd July 2008, 10:47pm

Wikipedia Review has made the claim that they have a checkuser in their pocket, a claim that was confirmed by one of the few posters there that I tend to trust. Therefore, in their own interests, checkusers who post there regularly should make it a point of principle never to use the tool against editors who are attacked there, or in whom Wikipedia Review expresses too much of an interest.

(here) and

Similarly, when I read Wikipedia Review claiming to have a checkuser in their pocket, my first thought was, "That person will out himself by checkusering me." (It was like finding out which employee has raided the company accounts by waiting to see which of them suddenly buys a new car and a second home in the country.)

(here)

And let me be the first to say Thank you, Lar, and Thank you, Alison. I hope you're enjoying those new cars we got you!

Seriously, though, who here would SlimVirgin trust who also had knowledge of whether we had a CU "in our pocket" (or as Slim would no doubt say, "in our pocketses")?

for someone who got an wikiillegal oversighter (allegations of jayjg) to blank away her wikipast, she sure is interested in dredging up "old" alledged WP incidents by those grudgers to keep that SlimVictim personae going strong.

if you're gonna dredge up the wikipast, others are going to return the favour it appears.

and so slimmy beats on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the wikipast...

Shouldn't someone praise Slimmy for trying to give us little people the privilege she surreptitiously enjoys? Of course, it helps justify her actions after the fact, but it's not too different from the "*69" proposals we see around here.

I, for one, would just give up the whole enterprise and make it so that every admin could see ips from some arbitrary date forward. That would sure as hell put some teeth into COI and alert everyone to suspicious characters. Better yet, I would require non-trivial account creation. But then I might still want a lot more checkusers running around.

It would be best if wikipedia gave up the mechanisms that allow socking for fun and profit, but "consensus" is in the site's DNA. I think any proposal to change CheckUser is more likely than fixing the flawed core of Wikipedia content management.

Shouldn't someone praise Slimmy for trying to give us little people the privilege she surreptitiously enjoys? (Of course, it helps justify her actions after the fact,

No kidding.

HELLO? This proposal is not sui generis. She's trying to subvert from the main point, which is "calling her on the carpet for other abuses".

This is straight out of the Durova behavior manual. read: "If someone highlights your bad behavior, then start making new policy proposals at will".

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 23rd July 2008, 11:38am